Commissioning “SIL” and the Risk of Reinstitutionalisation

A Critical Analysis of Supported Independent Living Reform, Shared Support Models, and the Future of Individualised Disability Support Under the NDIS

“An institution is not created by the shape of the building. It’s created by who holds the power, and what kind of power they hold.”  Dave Hingsberger

Abstract:

This document critically examines the proposed commissioning of Supported Independent Living (SIL) within the context of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 and the broader reform agenda currently reshaping the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).

The analysis argues that the proposed commissioning framework represents far more than a technical funding or market reform. Rather, it signals a potentially profound structural and philosophical shift away from the original principles of individualisation, participant autonomy, self-direction, and choice and control that underpinned the creation of the NDIS. The document explores how the emerging emphasis on “provider viability,” “market stewardship,” “sustainability,” standardised support models, and shared support assumptions may increasingly reposition disability support around the operational needs of governments, providers, and workforce systems rather than around the rights and aspirations of disabled people themselves.

The document traces the historical development of Supported Independent Living and demonstrates how SIL inherited many structural assumptions from earlier block-funded accommodation systems, including reliance on shared staffing, occupancy efficiency, economies of scale, centralised supervision, and provider-controlled service models. It argues that many contemporary reform proposals risk intensifying these historical dynamics through the expansion of commissioning structures, preferred provider arrangements, mandatory registration systems, and default shared support assumptions such as the proposed 1:3 staffing ratio framework.

A central focus of the analysis is the tension between economic efficiency and human rights. The document critically examines the evidentiary basis underpinning the proposed 1:3 shared support funding assumptions and argues that there is little publicly available evidence demonstrating that such arrangements are universally safe, clinically appropriate, safeguarding-oriented, or compatible with Article 19 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Instead, the strongest rationale emerging from current policy discussions appears to relate to workforce efficiency, provider sustainability, and long-term cost containment.

The document also draws extensively upon the findings and testimonies presented to the Disability Royal Commission. It outlines how the Commission heard sustained evidence linking congregate and shared accommodation environments to violence, abuse, neglect, restrictive practices, loss of autonomy, social isolation, co-tenant conflict, and institutional forms of control. Importantly, the analysis argues that many of these harms were structurally connected to congregate systems themselves rather than simply arising from isolated service failures.

Against this backdrop, the document argues that the proposed commissioning framework risks functioning as a contemporary form of reinstitutionalisation. Although the language of reform emphasises “best supports,” “market stewardship,” and “sustainability,” the underlying structural dynamics may increasingly pressure disabled people into standardised, shared, provider-managed arrangements organised around administrative efficiency and economic rationalisation.

Finally, the document explores an alternative approach grounded in genuinely individualised, participant-governed, and rights-based support systems. It proposes strengthening self-direction, protecting participant-led and “Service for One” models, separating housing from support provision, and reconceptualising safeguarding around trusted relationships, continuity, autonomy, and community inclusion rather than congregate oversight systems.

Ultimately, the document argues that the debate over SIL commissioning is fundamentally about the future character of disability support in Australia.  Whether the NDIS will continue evolving toward individually governed, community-based support arrangements grounded in autonomy and human rights, or whether it risks returning, under modernised policy language, to centrally managed systems shaped primarily around the needs of organisations rather than the lives of disabled people.

To read the full analysis use the following link to download the PDF File.

SIL Commissioning Analysis (Ver 1.0_25.05.2026).docx

Download DOCX • 297KB